Well, this is interesting. As some rumours already suggested, Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for a legislative framework regarding net neutrality. This being Google and all, some of you may expect this to be all flower-farting unicorns darting across rainbows, but sadly, that's not the case. This proposal? Well, it's not good.

I am not against differential pricing as long as all providers are giving equal access.

If Google and verizon want to make a deal to make Google sites faster... I have no issue with that as long as Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, MyNewWebsite can all get that same deal with the same pricing.

I see the providers as no different from consumers in this regard. Consumers have differential pricing as well. I can choose different speeds, bandwidth limits... as it should be.

Net neutrality is a vague concept that can get very murky and as long as everything is clear, I have no problem... whether it is co-locating servers, or even reserving bandwidth for premium services.

Let us imagine Version has a 100 MB/s pipe.
They use 20 MB/s pipe for 'premium' services.

As long as they state, I have unlimited access to my internet connection shared with 1000 users over 80 MB/s pipe, I have no issue.

The need for such becomes even more important as generic services start going to the internet. TV over the web is becoming a reality. What if Netflix/Hulu could get reserved bandwidth to ensure smooth playback.

This is as opposed to today where ISPs can actually screw with those services and perhaps cynically justifiably so given their network impact, like Rogers did in Canada by lowering bandwidth caps in anticipation of their arrival.